BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
randy oliver <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 3 Nov 2018 10:01:28 -0700
Content-Type:
multipart/mixed
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1270 bytes) , Vaping drops.JPG (72 kB)
Bill, you should run for politics--you sure can put out a convincing
rationalization for an argument : )

An accelerated mite drop (via vaping, powdered sugar, or other quick mite
kill) gives a good representation of the phoretic mite load of a colony,
but it needs to be divided by the number of frames of bees to be
meaningful.  For example, a mite drop from a 4-frame colony would be
expected to be half that of an 8-frame colony, even if they had exactly the
same infestation rates.  An alcohol wash does not require that adjustment.

Anyway, talk and rationalization are a great way to spend time.  I'm more
of a hard data guy.  I've attached some actual data comparing mite drops
and alcohol wash counts for two hives treated repeatedly with vaporizations.

When the infestation rates were high, the mite drops underestimated the
infestation, except for immediately after a vaporization.
When the rates dropped, natural drop (not accelerated by vapor application)
and alcohol washes tracked similarly.

-- 
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html


ATOM RSS1 RSS2